Comments

Rick Knepper: Dear Mr. Maki. Please hear this [potential] customer. I was looking forward to my first light-weight, mirror-less, high-resolution FF camera. 42 MP isn't enough resolution. I see from your comments that 42 MPs work out well for video shooters but there are still some of us who shoot stills. I'd take 4k video with slightly less quality.

Two brands have surpassed you in sensor resolution, one with your own sensor and hopefully, Nikon will follow too. Also, I would have thought that 6-7 fps would have been doable in a 42 MP camera by now.

I am looking forward to the A7r SP (still picture).

By the way, I am eager to use your camera with native lenses.

The whole world is in motion at various speeds. So is a photographer if he/she handholds his/her images. When bracketing nature/landscape shots, for exposure insurance or HDR (or some other reason), there is minute motion in the scene as well as the motion of the photographer's sway. HDR already reduces resolution as a major manipulation of pixels, but if the software has to align images further due to sway and reduce ghosting, then the resolution is further reduced.

Faster fps rates reduces alignment issues due to motion 1.) in the scene and 2.) of the photographer's sway. If not doing HDR,then a finely honed framing could be off when bracketing. Of course, a tripod could eliminate one of these issues but then the typical DPR member seems adamantly opposed to such uncool and geeky contraptions.

I can feel the difference between 3, 4.5, 5 and 6 fps.

With $1800 cameras sporting 10 fps rates, I was hoping for faster which isn't a proof for why Sony should have sped things up....

Rick Knepper: Dear Mr. Maki. Please hear this [potential] customer. I was looking forward to my first light-weight, mirror-less, high-resolution FF camera. 42 MP isn't enough resolution. I see from your comments that 42 MPs work out well for video shooters but there are still some of us who shoot stills. I'd take 4k video with slightly less quality.

Two brands have surpassed you in sensor resolution, one with your own sensor and hopefully, Nikon will follow too. Also, I would have thought that 6-7 fps would have been doable in a 42 MP camera by now.

I am looking forward to the A7r SP (still picture).

By the way, I am eager to use your camera with native lenses.

However, it seems, when Sony produces a sensor for a competitor, they will not compete directly, at least for some time period, so maybe I should have managed my expectations. Edit: My new 4k editing monitor also doubles as my viewing medium.

Rick Knepper: Dear Mr. Maki. Please hear this [potential] customer. I was looking forward to my first light-weight, mirror-less, high-resolution FF camera. 42 MP isn't enough resolution. I see from your comments that 42 MPs work out well for video shooters but there are still some of us who shoot stills. I'd take 4k video with slightly less quality.

Two brands have surpassed you in sensor resolution, one with your own sensor and hopefully, Nikon will follow too. Also, I would have thought that 6-7 fps would have been doable in a 42 MP camera by now.

I am looking forward to the A7r SP (still picture).

By the way, I am eager to use your camera with native lenses.

Alpha Jack, I'd be more than happy to reply to serious inquiry.

IMO, in general, 100 MP may not be enough. That's just my take on MPs. More MPs resolve ever smaller detail as sharper, clearer and when the image is reduced, and a tiny detail seemingly disappears, the whole image as a whole still has a sharper look. This doesn't even address deep cropping. I have actually stopped using a major sharpening step in my workflow as no longer being needed. Of course, if your viewing medium remains fixed, you will experience a diminished or perhaps even a negative return (speculating on this last bit). Upgrading to 50 MP, I also recently upgraded to a large 4k editing monitor from NEC.

I recognized in my first post here why Sony settled on 42 MP but as a still photographer, the more MPs the merrier, hence the qualification, also appearing in my initial post(s). I am not really focusing on 50 MP. I was hoping Sony would jump well beyond 50 given that they produced a 50 MP sensor for Pentax.

1.) Relevancy, out of the two of us, I am the only one looking at the images on a 4k monitor and because of various pixel pitch and screen sizes, not all 4k or HD monitors are created equal. Essentially, you are trying to say that an 4x6 print equals a 16x24 print because the same number of pixels were used.2.) Yes, same principal although noise and detail do not completely disappear at 8 MP reductions (they didn't even at 2 MP reductions). Again, critical viewing must be employed. Every pixel is a detail and when every pixel is sharper (or is part of a finer resolved image [for lack of a better way to put it]), the whole image is sharper. Whether or not you personally can recognize a given detail as sharper or better resolved, the whole image is more sharply resolved. Works for capture, works for viewing. Anybody running a copier at work knows this.3.) Yes, now we are getting somewhere. So, why equate the effect of a 4k monitor to an 8 MP reduction?

1.) I maintain that simulating a 4k view to be viewed on a HD monitor (the vast majority of monitors out there being HD) doesn't do 4k monitors justice in the minds of folks with no experience viewing on such monitors.2.) Even so, the notion that detail captured by varying amounts of resolution can not be seen at 8 MP downsizing is a disturbing one.3.) Viewing a full size image reduced to 8 MP is not the only way to view a 50 MP image or its parts.

Rishi, it you who should try to understand a knowledgeable member with experience with the actual equipment in question no less.

The size of a monitor holds no relevance? That is tantamount to saying the size of a print does not matter.

And no, my viewing distance has not changed. You failed to ask that although I believe I mentioned it. 18"

Again, you appear to have failed to understand my plain talk. The 'piece of crap' comment was certainly crass but it referred to the lack of a 32" 4k monitor at DPR and not the comparison itself on which I am sure my points would be undeniable which were and are:

Rick Knepper: Dear Mr. Maki. Please hear this [potential] customer. I was looking forward to my first light-weight, mirror-less, high-resolution FF camera. 42 MP isn't enough resolution. I see from your comments that 42 MPs work out well for video shooters but there are still some of us who shoot stills. I'd take 4k video with slightly less quality.

Two brands have surpassed you in sensor resolution, one with your own sensor and hopefully, Nikon will follow too. Also, I would have thought that 6-7 fps would have been doable in a 42 MP camera by now.

I am looking forward to the A7r SP (still picture).

By the way, I am eager to use your camera with native lenses.

Go! anyone else?

1.) Why do you feel 42 MP is enough?2.) Why do you feel 5 fps is enough?

lhkjacky: "if we just did the same thing as Canon and Nikon we’d lose".This was the statement that they told us, when they stopped making OVF camera.SLT is a unique camera, it is something that Cankon does not have.SLT combine the advantage of DSLR's level AF + EVF.

Everyone talking about A7Rii, because it have a new 42mp sensor, world first BIS Full Frame sensor, 4k video in FF, 5-axis IBIS, etc.

If they put this new sensor & technology in A99ii first, everyone will talk about it as well.

Rick Knepper: Dear Mr. Maki. Please hear this [potential] customer. I was looking forward to my first light-weight, mirror-less, high-resolution FF camera. 42 MP isn't enough resolution. I see from your comments that 42 MPs work out well for video shooters but there are still some of us who shoot stills. I'd take 4k video with slightly less quality.

Two brands have surpassed you in sensor resolution, one with your own sensor and hopefully, Nikon will follow too. Also, I would have thought that 6-7 fps would have been doable in a 42 MP camera by now.

I am looking forward to the A7r SP (still picture).

By the way, I am eager to use your camera with native lenses.

The biggest trolls on DPR are the fanboys of every brand mindlessly defending features that could have been better. My plea to DPR to rid the forums of this plague was deleted. This is why folks flee this site in droves.

Rick Knepper: Dear Mr. Maki. Please hear this [potential] customer. I was looking forward to my first light-weight, mirror-less, high-resolution FF camera. 42 MP isn't enough resolution. I see from your comments that 42 MPs work out well for video shooters but there are still some of us who shoot stills. I'd take 4k video with slightly less quality.

Two brands have surpassed you in sensor resolution, one with your own sensor and hopefully, Nikon will follow too. Also, I would have thought that 6-7 fps would have been doable in a 42 MP camera by now.

I am looking forward to the A7r SP (still picture).

By the way, I am eager to use your camera with native lenses.

I just paid $8k for a Pentax 645z so my price tolerance is a little higher than $1k. I don't know why I get these hostile, sarcastic and quite frankly, ridiculous responses. Expecting 50 MP + in a digital still camera today isn't unrealistic seeing as how I am using a Sony based 50 MP senor now. Canon got 5 fps from their 50 MP camera. The Pentax is much slower and I can feel it. I do not see why Sony couldn't edge them out at 6. Owning cameras that operate at 3, 4.5, 5 and 6, I guarantee you there difference in feel as well as result as the speed increases. I am not even talking about action/sport shooting.

In the end, it's a personal preference for certain specifications and a message to Mr. Maki. If you are okay with the specs, good for you.

Rick Knepper: Dear Mr. Maki. Please hear this [potential] customer. I was looking forward to my first light-weight, mirror-less, high-resolution FF camera. 42 MP isn't enough resolution. I see from your comments that 42 MPs work out well for video shooters but there are still some of us who shoot stills. I'd take 4k video with slightly less quality.

Two brands have surpassed you in sensor resolution, one with your own sensor and hopefully, Nikon will follow too. Also, I would have thought that 6-7 fps would have been doable in a 42 MP camera by now.

I am looking forward to the A7r SP (still picture).

By the way, I am eager to use your camera with native lenses.

Xavius, I've flagged your post as inappropriate. Let's see if DPR does the right thing and deletes your message.

There's my post above not hiding behind a link. What part are you taking personally? I thought I was giving DPR a little shot. But, I gave DPR or you or whoever props for the DPR studio comparison which I have used many times to determine the amount of detail captured by a given camera, and ultimately have made some buying decisions based on it. Thought that was a compliment. In fact, thank you for steering me in the direction of the Pentax 645z.

The Print exercise doesn't really make any sense to me but if you view the images critically, there's certainly enough detail to discern between a 36 and 50 MP capture, which was the point of the original discussion.

There is a difference viewing a resized (normalized?) 8 MP image (or any size for that matter ) on a 32" 4k monitor vs. whatever piece of crap DPR gives you.

Secondly, I have studied your studio shots many times, downloaded the RAWs, and those images along with many others on the internet helped me to make the decision to move to 50 MPs. One has to have a refined and educated sense of detail and a well-developed critical viewing regime to appreciate the differences. But what is new? One has to be a connoisseur to appreciate a Zeiss Otus over a typical run of the mill $125 50mm lens. I have been in the middle of this argument since Canon first released the 5D2 with all manner of Canon and Nikon fanboys. If one cannot see the difference (on any piece of crap monitor), that person will most likely remain a mediocre photographer."

Dear Mr. Maki. Please hear this [potential] customer. I was looking forward to my first light-weight, mirror-less, high-resolution FF camera. 42 MP isn't enough resolution. I see from your comments that 42 MPs work out well for video shooters but there are still some of us who shoot stills. I'd take 4k video with slightly less quality.

Two brands have surpassed you in sensor resolution, one with your own sensor and hopefully, Nikon will follow too. Also, I would have thought that 6-7 fps would have been doable in a 42 MP camera by now.

"Why would we delete his posts when your posts are just as offensive? Self-reflection much?"

Reading comprehension much? Where am I claiming my posts aren't offensive. His initial post trashing my photography sat there for 5 days before I saw it. Why didn't DPR delete this? Because it was me, maybe? DPR is welcomed to delete mine as well. In fact, I would like it because I am embarrassed I stooped to his level. Then, I can get back to educating this person on the functionality of camera features.

"Then again, coming from someone who thinks that binning 2.5 pixels to 1 vs. binning 2.12 pixels to 1 will actually make a significant visual difference... I'm not sure how seriously we should take your criticism."

You seem to be implying that sensor resolution doesn't matter but isn't it just a matter of you being infatuated with the idea of this camera and just got bent a little?

Does DPR have a 32" 4k monitor on the premises for you to view? Call NEC and see if they will send one for review (although I do not see why they would after seeing your attitude). If not, and you don't own one yourself, why are you even picking a fight with me on this issue?

Rishi, I do not know who you think tried to 'explain something' to me but no one actually owning and working a 4k monitor has disagreed with me.

I don't really care who wrote the article. You were quoting it. My/Your/DPR reportage = DPR's reportage. Assume the Universal You/The Universal DPR. It still seems a little dishonest and unfair to the brand. People cancelling their order of another brand doesn't make the A7r II a good camera. It's a false logic.

Rishi, joke on me? I didn't buy the lens. Go back and look at the f1.4 sample and my comments there. I have already stated for the record that the lens doesn't look good until f5.6. My comments regarding the adapter are there too. It appeared to me that the left side (well into the frame, hardly an edge issue)was quite blurred, more so than the right. For all I knew at the time, it could have been, 1.) the adapter, 2.) the lens was decentered, 3.) I was wrong, but now 4.) I no longer care as I am going a different direction.

I have been comparing different sensor resolutions probably long before you owned your first DSLR (well, you look young). Viewing downsized files captured by different sensor resolutions and comparing for detail is one thing. Comparing on different monitors is quite another. But in summary, if you are not seeing more detail more clearly in either case, I suggest you go back and look again.

Old Baldy, you are the first person to ever trash my images. Not that I live for anyone's approval. You may not like them (I doubt it, I think you are jealous), I would have figured DPR to have deleted your post by now. This personal attack goes a long way toward proving you do not understand the functions of a camera when this is all you got. A person who has never snapped a shot in his life can tell you what photograph has better resolution and probably guess correctly as to why a higher fps rate would be beneficial. Your dishonest 'opinion' of my photography has nothing with the debate. Until you learn to discuss the matter as an adult, you are going to continue to feel angst.